Semi-Supervised Learning for Predicting Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune disease of the central nervous system with a propensity to inflict severe neurological disability. Accurate and early prediction of MS progression is extremely crucial for its management and treatment. Methods: In this paper, we compare a number of self-labeled semi-supervised learning methods used to predict MS from labeled and unlabeled medical data. Specifically, we compare the performance of Self-Training, SETRED, Co-Training, Co-Training by Committee, Democratic Co-Learning, RASCO, RelRASCO, CoForest, and TriTraining in different labeled ratios. The data contain clinical, imaging, and demographic features, allowing for a detailed comparison of each method’s predictive ability. Results and Conclusions: The experimental results demonstrate that several self-labeling semi-supervised learning (SSL) algorithms perform competitively in the task of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) prediction, even when trained on as little as 30–40% of the labeled data. Notably, Co-Training by Committee, CoForest, and TriTraining consistently deliver high performance across all metrics (accuracy, F1-score, and MCC).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".